Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Judge rules against KC Johnson
Topic Started: Oct 15 2012, 08:23 PM (2,857 Views)
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/20500118/article-Historian-must-answer-questions-about-lacrosse-case

Historian must answer questions about lacrosse case

By Ray Gronberg

gronberg@heraldsun.com; 919-419-6648

DURHAM – A historian who’s written about the Duke lacrosse case must answer questions from Duke University lawyers defending the school from lawsuits filed by two groups of former lacrosse players, a federal court in Maine says.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John Rich III said Brooklyn College professor K.C. Johnson has to give Duke’s legal team a deposition and turn over documents about his dealings with the players.

Johnson invoked a form of journalist’s confidentiality privilege as he fought Duke’s subpoena. Rich acknowledged that such claims can be valid, depending on how the interests in each case balance out.

In this case, Duke wants to know what players told Johnson, the co-author of a book, “Until Proven Innocent,” that was sympathetic to their point of view.

“People who bring suit must expect that their prior statements that are relevant to their claims cannot be hidden from those whom they are suing,” Rich said, holding that what the players told Johnson is fair game for Duke’s inquiry.

He added that Duke had already agreed to focus its questions on the events that happened between March 13, 2006, and March 28, 2006.

That covers the early stages of the police investigation that began in 2006 after stripper Crystal Mangum falsely accused members of Duke’s 2005-06 men’s lacrosse team of raping her at a team party.

It also covers a string of discussions or meetings between team leaders and a trio of key Duke administrators: school President Richard Brodhead, Executive Vice President Tallman Trask and Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek.

The players – separate groups of 38 and three, represented by different teams of lawyers – are suing Duke for fraud.

Their lawsuits say campus leaders relayed to police information the players told them in confidence. They also allege that Duke tried to cover up the fact that, without waiting for a subpoena, it had given detectives data about the players’ whereabouts on the night of the party.

Rich’s ruling was the second on an evidence-gathering dispute to go Duke’s way in as many weeks.

Another federal magistrate judge, in Washington, D.C., previously halted Durham lawyer Bob Ekstrand’s attempt to subpoena information from lawyers representing the group of 38 former players.

Ekstrand is representing the other three players who are suing Duke. The lawsuits are proceeding on separate tracks with separate evidence gathering. Lawyers for the 38 made a deal with Duke in January to keep what they learn confidential, save for what they have to include in future court filings.

[Is that obstruction of justice...see the thread on this...]


Duke’s lawyers want to question Johnson because he was in close communication with the players and Ekstrand from early on. His book included detail about what allegedly was said between the players and Brodhead, Trask and Wasiolek.

[So why not depose the players as to what they said?]

Rich noted that Duke’s original subpoena of Johnson hadn’t asked for any information the historian might have received from the players’ parents. Though subsequent filings from the school have voiced curiosity about those exchanges, Rich said point-blank that they’re not covered by his order.

He also cautioned Duke’s lawyers to focus their inquiry on the fraud claims.

The dispute over Johnson’s subpoena played out in a Maine courtroom because he lives in that state.





Edited by Quasimodo, Oct 15 2012, 08:48 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



I fail to see any need for Johnson to testify, since the players themselves are available to testify as to what they said.


Now KC has to hire an attorney and be out considerable expense, plus time and effort. Plus in the future anyone who
wants to talk with an author may be less forthcoming.




ETA: I suppose KC can appeal; but that will also cost. In the end his bills may be more than he made off the book.





Edited by Quasimodo, Oct 15 2012, 08:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Duke’s lawyers want to question Johnson because he was in close communication with the players and Ekstrand from early on.


How "early on"? From March 15 to March 30? And what does "close communication" mean? A couple of emails?


Quote:
 
His book included detail about what allegedly was said between the players and Brodhead, Trask and Wasiolek.


If this is so, then surely the plaintiffs--Brodhead, Trask, and Wasiolek, know what was said between them. Why do they
need Johnson's testimony about conversations which they themselves were involved in?

Again, to me, this does not past the smell test; it seems more like harassment, or maybe an attempt to find a "gotcha!" moment (which is easy when there are four or five people trying to recall the same conversation months--or in KC's case, six years, later.)





(MOO. For discussion purposes only)

Edited by Quasimodo, Oct 15 2012, 08:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Of course, if Johnson appeals, which he may do (even on principle), then the cases will be delayed again--
and the defendants will argue that it is not their fault (which I would find fatuous...)



(MOO)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
“People who bring suit must expect that their prior statements that are relevant to their claims cannot be hidden from those whom they are suing,” Rich said, holding that what the players told Johnson is fair game for Duke’s inquiry.


So why not ask the players what they said? They are already part of the suit and going to be deposed anyway. Aren't they
a much better primary source for what they said?


Quote:
 
He added that Duke had already agreed to focus its questions on the events that happened between March 13, 2006, and March 28, 2006.


How involved was Johnson in the case at that time? If the players LATER told him about what happened to them then,
isn't anything he repeats about that just HEARSAY?

Especially if the players themselves are around to testify themselves as to what they said?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



These cases can't get anyone else to testify, but they can force KC to testify?

Where's the testimony from Mangum? From Nifong? From Gottlieb? From Himan? From Chalmers? From Bell?
From Baker?

(What did these individuals say to Brodhead, Steel, Blue, etc.?)

Isn't all of that highly relevant? But, of course, the number of witnesses who can be deposed has been limited...


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sdsgo

People who bring suit must expect that their prior statements that are relevant to their claims cannot be hidden from those whom they are suing,” Rich said, holding that what the players told Johnson is fair game for Duke’s inquiry.

He added that Duke had already agreed to focus its questions on the events that happened between March 13, 2006, and March 28, 2006.

Rich said point-blank that they’re [parents] not covered by his order.

He also cautioned Duke’s lawyers to focus their inquiry on the fraud claims.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



Isn't what Ekstrand told the players, and vice-versa, part of an attorney's work product?

Is testimony about that allowed?

Even if they had confessed to Ekstrand about the rape, that wouldn't be admissible.

How much less so whatever they said about their keycards...

And if Ekstrand later repeated something which the players told him, to Johnson, isn't Johnson repeating
that only HEARSAY?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
“People who bring suit must expect that their prior statements that are relevant to their claims cannot be hidden from those whom they are suing,”


Not arguing that they can't be hidden; but what is the source for them? Isn't it the players themselves? Aren't they going to be deposed under oath anyway?

ETA: this looks like a fishing expedition to me--try and find something, somewhere--which is hardly in accordance with
"judicial economy"...


(MOO)



Edited by Quasimodo, Oct 15 2012, 09:04 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

This ruling is a travesty and I do hope that KC appeals the magistrate's decision.

Journalists have the right to keep their sources confidential unless there is an overhwhemling reason to force them to talk.

Duke's lawyers are trying to take the easy way out to obtain confidential information, besides harrassing KC. They have had the opportunity to depose the players themselves, as well as other partcipants. KC's testimony would not add to that in a unique way.

Where are all the freedom of the press folks on this matter? They should be raising a stink about this situation. No blogger or journalist is safe if this stands.

If KC is forced to undergo a deposition, I hope his attorney will limit the questioning strictly. Hopefully it will not come to that point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
sceptical
Oct 15 2012, 09:25 PM
This ruling is a travesty and I do hope that KC appeals the magistrate's decision.

Journalists have the right to keep their sources confidential unless there is an overhwhemling reason to force them to talk.

Duke's lawyers are trying to take the easy way out to obtain confidential information, besides harrassing KC. They have had the opportunity to depose the players themselves, as well as other partcipants. KC's testimony would not add to that in a unique way.

Where are all the freedom of the press folks on this matter? They should be raising a stink about this situation. No blogger or journalist is safe if this stands.

If KC is forced to undergo a deposition, I hope his attorney will limit the questioning strictly. Hopefully it will not come to that point.
.
Absolutely.


Hearsay, Hearsay, Hearsay.

Imagine the fishing expeditions that would be opened up if this becomes the new standard.

Unbelievable!

.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT DAVID JOHNSON

The undersigned, Robert David “KC” Johnson, being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says as
follows:

(snip)

3. I started Durham-in-Wonderland (http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/), a
blog devoted solely to the Duke lacrosse case, on 11 August 2006. . .

4. Between 25 August 2006 and 5 October 2007, Durham-in-Wonderland had (at
least) one daily post. The blog remains active, and the most recent post appeared on 20
September 2012.



"Duke’s lawyers want to question Johnson because he was in close communication with the players and Ekstrand from early on."


How is this, "early on"? If he was in "close communication" from "early on", why didn't he start a blog about the case
before August? From then on he blogged daily--but it wasn't "early on".

August was way late in the game--after the DNA results were known, after the Seligmann photos were out, after Mangum's story of an earlier gang rape was known...after nearly everyone but Nifong's dog had given up the case.






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

KC needs to play the dean sue under oath testimony.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

If I were in KC's shoes, I do not know what I would do.

The easy (and potentially less expensive) approach would be to go along with the deposition but only answer questions about the time specified by the magistrate (which was before the blog started, as pointed out above).

The more difficult approach would be to stand on principle against weakening the concept of journalistic confidentiality. Unless KC got help from organizations like AAUP, ACLU, or journalism societies, an appeal could be potentially very expensive.

I am not a lawyer and have not read the magistrate's opinion, but the reasoning reported sounds weak. If KC has any knowledge of what transpired between the LAX players and Duke officials, KC's account would be hearsay. KC is not a unique source for the information and therefore the balance of interests should tip towards confidentiality.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nyesq83
Member Avatar

I am appalled by this whole affair.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

KC needs to be blogging about all this. A lot.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

KC did not get involved as others say until about mid to late summer. It might just be that some of the players thought that they talked to KC much earlier on. Duke may be just checking that scenario out so that at trial they can discredit the witness. I mean, KC was huge in this case to everyone. Without looking it up I might have assumed KC was on the case in March also.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

I have briefly reveiwed the decision by Magistrate Judge Rich and here is a part. The magistrate's ruling is specious. In effect he argues that because the scope of the questions to KC are so limited it is justified to breach First Amendment journalistic confidentiality. He suggests that the lacrosse players lost any expectation of privacy when they sued Duke, but does not address the damage to the First Amendment if if any blogger or journalist or academic can be questioned just because another party with whom they communicated is involved in litigation.

It is interesting that Duke just subpoenaed KC Johnson and not other journalists involved such as Joe Neff, Anne Blythe, Samiha Khanna, Roy Gronberg, or even KC's co-author Stuart taylor.


Quote:
 
A. The Subpoena for Documents

Following discussion and negotiation by the lawyers involved, Duke has agreed to limit
its demand for documents to non-privileged communications with “publicly-acknowledged
sources,” Motion to Compel Robert David Johnson’s Compliance with Subpoenas (“Motion to
Compel”) (ECF No. 1) at 4, and to further limit its inquiry to the topic areas of (a) events
occurring between March 13, 2006, and March 28, 2006, (b) the subpoena for DukeCard
information served by the Durham, North Carolina police, (c) Duke’s prior release of DukeCard
information to the Durham police, and (d) any disciplinary action taken against a plaintiff in the
McFadyen case. Id. at 10 n.4.4 My discussion addresses only this narrowed scope of requests.

4 The footnote also says that Duke will limit its requests to written communications between Dr. Johnson and, inter
alia, the players’ parents. There was no request for communications between Dr. Johnson and the parents in the
initial subpoena. I will not order Dr. Johnson to produce any documents not reasonably within the scope of the
initial subpoena.


At oral argument, counsel appeared to agree that this dispute is controlled by the First
Circuit’s decision in Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp., 162 F.3d 708 (1st Cir. 1998), although they
disagree sharply about how its teachings should be applied here. In that case, the defendant
sought the notes, recordings, and transcripts of a third-party author and college professor, as well
as his correspondence, with 40 employees of its primary competitor, for possible use in its
defense in an antitrust action. Id. at 711. The court from which the subpoena had issued
declined to compel the production of this material.

On appeal, the First Circuit held that such individuals “are within a group whose pre-
publication research merits a modicum of protection.” Id. at 715. It then set out the applicable
test as follows:

[W]hen a subpoena seeks divulgement of confidential information
compiled by a journalist or academic researcher in anticipation of
publication, courts must apply a balancing test. This test contemplates
consideration of a myriad of factors, often uniquely drawn out of the
factual circumstances of the particular case. Each party comes to this
test holding a burden. Initially, the movant must make a prima facie
showing that his claim of need and relevance is not frivolous. Upon such
a showing, the burden shifts to the objector to demonstrate the basis for
withholding the information. The court then must place those factors
that relate to the movant’s need for the information on one pan of the
scales and those that reflect the objector’s interest in confidentiality and
the potential injury to the free flow of information that disclosure
portends on the opposite pan.



Id. at 716 (citations omitted).

Here, Duke has shown that it is likely that there exist more communications between Dr.
Johnson and the plaintiffs than the 70 emails that Duke has been able to locate to date, and that
the plaintiffs have not been able to produce them when asked to do so. See, e.g., [Partial
Transcript of] Videotaped Deposition of Anthony McDevitt (ECF No. 2-5) at 314; [Partial
Transcript of] Videotaped Deposition of Edward C. Carrington, VII (ECF No. 2-6) at 246-47;
[Partial Transcript of] Videotaped Deposition of John Jennison (ECF No. 2-7) at 236; and Letter
dated September 10, 2012, from Jason F. Trumpbour to Tom Segars, Esq. (ECF No. 13-4).5 The
relevance of such communications is fairly obvious: Dr. Johnson wrote about the very incidents
that are at issue in the underlying actions. Duke’s need for such information is also apparent:
Duke is defending itself against the claims of the same individuals who communicated with Dr.
Johnson about the events at issue. Unlike the moving party in Cusumano, 162 F.3d at 716-17,
Duke has taken the time and made the effort to try to obtain from other sources the information
that it seeks from Dr. Johnson. Thus, Duke has made the necessary prima facie showing under
Cusumano.6
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

chatham
Oct 16 2012, 07:40 AM
KC did not get involved as others say until about mid to late summer. It might just be that some of the players thought that they talked to KC much earlier on. Duke may be just checking that scenario out so that at trial they can discredit the witness. I mean, KC was huge in this case to everyone. Without looking it up I might have assumed KC was on the case in March also.
KC was not involved in the case until later in the summer of 2006 and certainly not in March and April. Durham-in-Wonderland did not start until August 2006. I would be surprised if there was much of consequence between KC and the lax players during the time in question specified by the subpoena.

ETA: Johnson's first writing on the lacrosse case was April 16, 2006. He did not start daily blogging until mid-August.
Edited by sceptical, Oct 16 2012, 04:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
RYAN McFADYEN and EDWARD )
CARRINGTON, )

Plaintiffs

v. No. 2:12-mc-196-JHR

DUKE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Two motions, one to compel and one to quash, have been filed regarding subpoenas for deposition and to produce documents served in two related foreign actions. The subpoenas, dated July 9, 2012, were served by Duke University on Dr. Robert David Johnson, a Maine resident and a non-party to two actions pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina that gave rise to the discovery sought. Duke seeks an order compelling Dr. Johnson to produce certain documents and appear for deposition, and Dr. Johnson seeks an order quashing the subpoenas. For the reasons that follow, I grant the motion to compel in part and deny the motion to quash.

(At oral argument, counsel for both parties took the position that the motions should be decided by this court, rather than the court in which the underlying actions are pending)


I. Background
In the underlying actions, former members of the Duke lacrosse team have sued Duke University and others for their actions or inaction in the spring of 2006 when, in a case of national notoriety, several Duke lacrosse players had been accused of crimes by a dancer who had been hired to perform at a party. The criminal charges resulting from these accusations were ultimately dismissed. Dr. Johnson and a co-author wrote a book about these events, entitled Until Proven Innocent, and Dr. Johnson wrote a blog about them, called “Durham-in-Wonderland,” which he continues to write.

On June 9, 2011, the presiding judge in the North Carolina cases issued an order granting in part a motion to stay. In the underlying “McFadyen” case, Counts 21 and 24 were not stayed. Count 21 alleges a breach of contract arising out of the imposition of disciplinary measures against the student plaintiffs. Count 24 alleges fraudulent misrepresentation in letters regarding “DukeCard” information2. In the underlying “Carrington” case, Counts 8 (for fraud), 11 (for constructive fraud), and 19 (for negligent misrepresentation) were not stayed. The court allowed discovery to proceed only with respect to these counts.

The deposition subpoenas served on Dr. Johnson by Duke set a deposition date of August 6, 2012, and the document subpoenas set a date for production of 10 or 11 categories of documents of July 30, 2012. The document subpoenas include one page entitled “Introduction,” three pages of definitions, and a page of instructions. The following categories of documents were requested:

1. all notes from interviews with named individuals “during which any Information Concerning Pending Claims was discussed.”

2. all “discovery files” as that term was used in Dr. Johnson’s September 1, 2008, blog titled “Paperback Source Notes” that contain any “Information Concerning Pending Claims;”

3. all correspondence with Robert C. Ekstrand, Stefanie Sparks Smith, or any other attorney or employee of Ekstrand & Ekstrand LLP3 “that contain any Information Concerning Pending Claims;”

4. in the “Carrington” case subpoena only, all correspondence with Charles J. Cooper, Peter A. Patterson, David H. Thompson, Nichole J. Moss, or any other attorney or employee of Cooper & Kirk, PCCL, that contain any Information Concerning Pending Claims;

5. all correspondence with any Duke lacrosse player that contains any Information Concerning Pending Claims;

6. all correspondence with any Duke employee that contains any Information Concerning Pending Claims;

7. all correspondence with any Duke alumnus that contains any Information Concerning Pending Claims;

8. all documents “that concern, discuss, or reflect any payments made to a Duke Lacrosse Player for that person’s time or information relating to the Lacrosse Incident;”

9. all documents “that concern, discuss, or reflect any payments made to Robert C. Ekstrand, Stefanie Sparks Smith, or any other attorney or employee of Ekstrand & Ekstrand for that person’s time or information relating to the Lacrosse Incident”;

10. all policies or contractual agreements “that concern, discuss, or reflect the management of” Dr. Johnson’s Duke-related website; and
11. all policies or contractual agreements that concern, discuss, or reflect the removal of comments posed on” Dr. Johnson’s Duke-related website.



The subpoenas define “Information Concerning Pending Claims” to include the following subjects:

(a) the disclosure of DukeCard Data to the Durham Police department, the subsequent subpoena that was issued to Matthew Drummond on May 31, 2006, seeking production of DukeCard Data by Duke, or the responses to that subpoena;

(b) in the “Carrington” case subpoena only, communications between Tallman Trask and the co-captains of the 2005-2006 Duke men’s lacrosse team on March 24, 2006, or any subsequent discussions regarding those Communications;

(c) in the “Carrington” case subpoena only, communications between Richard Brodhead and the co-captains of the 2005-2006 Duke men’s lacrosse team on March 28, 2006, or any subsequent discussions regarding those communications;

(d) in the “Carrington” case subpoena only, communications between Suzanne Wasiolek and one or more of the co-captains on March 15, 2006, and thereafter or any subsequent discussions regarding those Communications; or the job performance of Richard Brodhead, Robert Dean, Matthew Drummond, Aaron Graves, Kate Hendricks, Tallman Trask, and Suzanne Wasiolek;

(e) in the “McFadyen” case subpoena only, information regarding the disciplinary proceedings concerning Breck Archer, the disciplinary proceedings concerning Matthew Wilson, or the interim suspension of Ryan McFadyen.

Edited by Quasimodo, Oct 16 2012, 08:32 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 

II. Discussion

A. The Subpoena for Documents

Following discussion and negotiation by the lawyers involved, Duke has agreed to limit its demand for documents to non-privileged communications with “publicly-acknowledged sources,” Motion to Compel Robert David Johnson’s Compliance with Subpoenas (“Motion to Compel”) (ECF No. 1) at 4, and to further limit its inquiry to the topic areas of (a) events occurring between March 13, 2006, and March 28, 2006, (b) the subpoena for DukeCard information served by the Durham, North Carolina police, (c) Duke’s prior release of DukeCard information to the Durham police, and (d) any disciplinary action taken against a plaintiff in the McFadyen case. Id. at 10 n.4.4 My discussion addresses only this narrowed scope of requests.

4 The footnote also says that Duke will limit its requests to written communications between Dr. Johnson and, inter alia, the players’ parents. There was no request for communications between Dr. Johnson and the parents in the initial subpoena. I will not order Dr. Johnson to produce any documents not reasonably within the scope of the initial subpoena.

At oral argument, counsel appeared to agree that this dispute is controlled by the First Circuit’s decision in Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp., 162 F.3d 708 (1st Cir. 1998), although they disagree sharply about how its teachings should be applied here. In that case, the defendant sought the notes, recordings, and transcripts of a third-party author and college professor, as well as his correspondence, with 40 employees of its primary competitor, for possible use in its defense in an antitrust action. Id. at 711. The court from which the subpoena had issued declined to compel the production of this material.

On appeal, the First Circuit held that such individuals “are within a group whose pre-publication research merits a modicum of protection.” Id. at 715. It then set out the applicable test as follows:

[W]hen a subpoena seeks divulgement of confidential information compiled by a journalist or academic researcher in anticipation of publication, courts must apply a balancing test. This test contemplates consideration of a myriad of factors, often uniquely drawn out of the factual circumstances of the particular case. Each party comes to this test holding a burden. Initially, the movant must make a prima facie showing that his claim of need and relevance is not frivolous. Upon such a showing, the burden shifts to the objector to demonstrate the basis for withholding the information. The court then must place those factors that relate to the movant’s need for the information on one pan of the scales and those that reflect the objector’s interest in confidentiality and the potential injury to the free flow of information that disclosure portends on the opposite pan.
Id. at 716 (citations omitted).


Here, Duke has shown that it is likely that there exist more communications between Dr. Johnson and the plaintiffs than the 70 emails that Duke has been able to locate to date, and that the plaintiffs have not been able to produce them when asked to do so. See, e.g., [Partial Transcript of] Videotaped Deposition of Anthony McDevitt (ECF No. 2-5) at 314; [Partial Transcript of] Videotaped Deposition of Edward C. Carrington, VII (ECF No. 2-6) at 246-47; [Partial Transcript of] Videotaped Deposition of John Jennison (ECF No. 2-7) at 236; and Letter dated September 10, 2012, from Jason F. Trumpbour to Tom Segars, Esq. (ECF No. 13-4).

The relevance of such communications is fairly obvious: Dr. Johnson wrote about the very incidents that are at issue in the underlying actions. Duke’s need for such information is also apparent: Duke is defending itself against the claims of the same individuals who communicated with Dr. Johnson about the events at issue. Unlike the moving party in Cusumano, 162 F.3d at 716-17, Duke has taken the time and made the effort to try to obtain from other sources the information that it seeks from Dr. Johnson. Thus, Duke has made the necessary prima facie showing under Cusumano.

Dr. Johnson has aimed most of his fire at these initial requirements. However, with respect to his burden to demonstrate a basis for withholding the information, he has adequately shown that he and the plaintiffs in the underlying actions had an expectation of privacy, see Affidavit of Robert David Johnson (“Johnson Aff.”) (ECF No. 5-1) ¶¶ 8-10, 12-16. Yet, that is not enough, particularly where, as here, the plaintiffs are themselves the parties who stand to benefit from Dr. Johnson’s invocation of the shield of privacy while pursuing claims against Duke based upon the very events about which they spoke with Dr. Johnson. Contrary to Dr. Johnson’s argument, I do not see how compelling him, under these circumstances, to reveal what the plaintiffs told him will chill his efforts to obtain information about the Duke lacrosse scandal from any other individuals. People who bring suit must expect that their prior statements that are relevant to their claims cannot be hidden from those whom they are suing.


(Note 6: Duke’s proffered interest in possible impeachment of the plaintiff lacrosse players’ testimony, standing alone, is not enough to justify production. See In re Bextra & Celebrex Marketing Sales Practices & Product Liability Litig., 249 F.R.D. 8, 12 (D. Mass. 2008). In addition, its professed concern for “testing” the plaintiffs’ claims of attorney-client privilege should be addressed to the trial judge.

(Note 7: I note that much of Dr. Johnson’s concern is directed at Duke employees or those who “had business or other professional dealings with Duke or the city of Durham that they wanted to avoid jeopardizing.” Johnson Aff. ¶¶ 12-13. Duke’s request has now been limited to communications with the plaintiffs and their attorneys, so these concerns are no longer relevant.

In my view, the Cusumano balance tips in favor of Duke under the circumstances of this case. As narrowed, Duke’s request for communications between the plaintiffs and/or their lawyers and Dr. Johnson, concerning a distinct period of time, and limited to three discrete issues, does not harm the plaintiffs’ expectations of privacy, rendered ineffectual by their decisions to bring the underlying lawsuits, and does not affect the free flow of information sufficiently to require that the modified subpoena be quashed.

When information is sought by subpoena from a non-party, like Dr. Johnson here, the court must also be concerned for the burden “thrust upon” those third parties. Cusumano, 162 F.3d at 717. In this case, however, Dr. Johnson has made no attempt to show that compliance with the modified request will be unduly burdensome. Indeed, he says that he no longer has his handwritten notes from his interviews of any Duke students or former students. Johnson Aff. ¶¶ 26, 28. Notably, he has not contended that he no longer has access to emails that would be responsive to the subpoenas.

Given the modified and narrowed scope of the document subpoenas, I see no need for the privilege log requested by Duke.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 

Memorandum of Law in Response to Robert David Johnson’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas (ECF No. 11-1) at 4-5.

B. The Deposition Subpoenas

Dr. Johnson devotes little argument to his motion to quash the subpoenas for his deposition. He contends that the deposition subpoenas should be quashed “[f]or the same reasons of privilege and respect for the First Amendment.”

I have addressed Dr. Johnson’s First Amendment concerns in the context of the subpoenas for documents and have concluded that those concerns do not require the quashing of the documentary subpoenas, as now limited in scope.

The only other argument raised in support of his motion to quash the deposition subpoenas by Dr. Johnson is an assertion that “the prior deposition taken from Dr. Johnson [presumably by Duke] is replete with examples of improper questioning of a reporter’s editorial judgments and thought processes.” Id. Such questions would not be appropriate in any deposition of Dr. Johnson taken at this time, because they are well beyond the limited scope of discovery allowed by the trial court in North Carolina, as further voluntarily limited by Duke herein. Should such questions be posed, and should the questioner insist upon answers, or seek to prolong the deposition by asking other inappropriate questions, Dr. Johnson and his attorney have available the same remedy available to all deponents in federal lawsuits: contacting the court to request a remedial order, even as promptly as during a recess of the deposition.

Dr. Johnson has not made the necessary case for quashing the subpoenas for his deposition. See, e.g., M.Y. v. Danly, Inc., Civil Nos. 09-108-P-H, 10-308-P-H, 2010 WL 4569852, at *1 (D. Me. Nov. 3, 2010).

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Duke University’s motion to compel compliance with its subpoenas directed to Dr. Robert David Johnson is GRANTED IN PART: Dr. Johnson shall provide all communications between him and the named plaintiffs in the underlying actions or between him and the attorneys who represented those plaintiffs at the relevant time, limited to the time period and issues set forth in footnote 4 on page 10 of Duke’s motion to compel, and Dr. Johnson shall appear for deposition at a mutually agreeable time and place. The motion to compel is otherwise DENIED. Dr. Johnson’s motion to quash the subpoenas is DENIED.

Dated this 12th day of October, 2012.

/s/ John H. Rich III

John H. Rich III


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



The great fishing expedition...(all of this would IMHO be either hearsay or else be obtainable from primary sources, not the author.)



Quote:
 

1. all notes from interviews with named individuals “during which any Information Concerning Pending Claims was discussed.”

2. all “discovery files” as that term was used in Dr. Johnson’s September 1, 2008, blog titled “Paperback Source Notes” that contain any “Information Concerning Pending Claims;”

3. all correspondence with Robert C. Ekstrand, Stefanie Sparks Smith, or any other attorney or employee of Ekstrand & Ekstrand LLP3 “that contain any Information Concerning Pending Claims;”

[a way to get at attorney work product? "In addition, its [Duke's] professed concern for “testing” the plaintiffs’ claims of attorney-client privilege should be addressed to the trial judge." Any question how Judge Beaty would rule?]


4. in the “Carrington” case subpoena only, all correspondence with Charles J. Cooper, Peter A. Patterson, David H. Thompson, Nichole J. Moss, or any other attorney or employee of Cooper & Kirk, PCCL, that contain any Information Concerning Pending Claims;

5. all correspondence with any Duke lacrosse player that contains any Information Concerning Pending Claims;

6. all correspondence with any Duke employee that contains any Information Concerning Pending Claims;

[What employee wants to be on the record about what they said to KC Johnson? What employee will talk to him or any other author in the future? What employee will risk being a whistleblower in any future similar case, if they have
this example before them--that if you talk to an author about a school scandal, you will be exposed to your employer?]


7. all correspondence with any Duke alumnus that contains any Information Concerning Pending Claims;

[Does that include with Duke Trustees? See above. And what about emails to bloggers who are also alums? ]

8. all documents “that concern, discuss, or reflect any payments made to a Duke Lacrosse Player for that person’s time or information relating to the Lacrosse Incident;”

[LOL!]

9. all documents “that concern, discuss, or reflect any payments made to Robert C. Ekstrand, Stefanie Sparks Smith, or any other attorney or employee of Ekstrand & Ekstrand for that person’s time or information relating to the Lacrosse Incident”;


10. all policies or contractual agreements “that concern, discuss, or reflect the management of” Dr. Johnson’s Duke-related website; and

[LOL! I think those can be found on the NET. But what about future bloggers and their "contractual agreements"? And what does
any of this have to do with the issues at hand?]


11. all policies or contractual agreements that concern, discuss, or reflect the removal of comments posed on” Dr. Johnson’s Duke-related website.

[See above. What does how he runs his website have to do with the issues at hand?]


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
The relevance of such communications is fairly obvious: Dr. Johnson wrote about the very incidents that are at issue in the underlying actions. Duke’s need for such information is also apparent: Duke is defending itself against the claims of the same individuals who communicated with Dr. Johnson about the events at issue. Unlike the moving party in Cusumano, 162 F.3d at 716-17, Duke has taken the time and made the effort to try to obtain from other sources the information that it seeks from Dr. Johnson. Thus, Duke has made the necessary prima facie showing under Cusumano.


When did they "communicate"? Months later when he was writing the book? And if he has not retained those notes, is he
requested to remember what they said to him six years ago?

And when five or six people try to remember the same conversations--in depositions six years later--are they all going
to recall those conversations in exactly the same words? (Ever play Telephone?)

Is this anything other than an attempt to find a "gotcha!" moment?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Of possible use here.

http://www.omln.org/


The Online Media Legal Network (OMLN) is a network of law firms, law school clinics, in-house counsel, and individual lawyers throughout the United States willing to provide pro bono (free) and reduced fee legal assistance to qualifying online journalism ventures and other digital media creators.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
...he has adequately shown that he and the plaintiffs in the underlying actions had an expectation of privacy, see Affidavit of Robert David Johnson (“Johnson Aff.”) Yet, that is not enough, particularly where, as here, the plaintiffs are themselves the parties who stand to benefit from Dr. Johnson’s invocation of the shield of privacy while pursuing claims against Duke based upon the very events about which they spoke with Dr. Johnson.

[I don't see how, if they had an expectation of privacy, that would not be sufficient; however...]

Contrary to Dr. Johnson’s argument, I do not see how compelling him, under these circumstances, to reveal what the plaintiffs told him will chill his efforts to obtain information about the Duke lacrosse scandal from any other individuals.

[ Will any employee of Duke criticize the place to an author
if his words, given with expectation of privacy, are to be exposed later? ]


People who bring suit must expect that their prior statements that are relevant to their claims cannot be hidden from those whom they are suing.

[Prior statements given to reporters with an expectation of privacy? And what was KC doing on his blog, except reporting and acting as a reporter (and editorial opinion writer)?]


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

Quasimodo
Oct 16 2012, 08:35 AM
Quote:
 
The relevance of such communications is fairly obvious: Dr. Johnson wrote about the very incidents that are at issue in the underlying actions. Duke’s need for such information is also apparent: Duke is defending itself against the claims of the same individuals who communicated with Dr. Johnson about the events at issue. Unlike the moving party in Cusumano, 162 F.3d at 716-17, Duke has taken the time and made the effort to try to obtain from other sources the information that it seeks from Dr. Johnson. Thus, Duke has made the necessary prima facie showing under Cusumano.


When did they "communicate"? Months later when he was writing the book? And if he has not retained those notes, is he
requested to remember what they said to him six years ago?

And when five or six people try to remember the same conversations--in depositions six years later--are they all going
to recall those conversations in exactly the same words? (Ever play Telephone?)

Is this anything other than an attempt to find a "gotcha!" moment?

Even with the scope of the subpoena narrowed, this is a fishing expedition on the part of Duke lawyers.

Why was KC Johnson singled out by Duke for a subpoena? . Why not other journalists who interviewed the lacrosse players ?. There were interviews with the players in a number of publication include the Chronicle, the Charlottesville Daily Progress, Newsweek, 60 Minutes etc.

I believe this is legal harrassment-- an attempt to punish him for his criticism and to have a chilling effect on his writings. This type of action was specifically why the Founders adopted the First Amendment.
Edited by sceptical, Oct 16 2012, 09:00 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Morgan

Appears to me that the plaintiffs should have anticipated this happening. KC was the internet public voice of the defendants.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Morgan
Oct 16 2012, 09:04 AM
Appears to me that the plaintiffs should have anticipated this happening. KC was the internet public voice of the defendants.
This raises the issue of free speech, though; if one cannot blog freely about a case, and if people
cannot share information with you about it,

then what blogger in the future will blog freely; and who will share information freely with a blogger?

The "chill" factor has to be weighed against the loss to Duke's case if they don't get info from Johnson.

And since that risk of loss to the Duke defendants appears to me to be very slight (since they
are fully able to depose the players themselves as to what they said), the weight seems to me to come
down on the side of not compelling a blogger to testify.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
It looked to me like he was reporting events (the MSM begged off when news came through that didn't fit the narrative) and he allowed people to post their opinions of the news and analysis he was reporting.

Imagine them doing this to a sympathic figure being raliroaded and one of the favored bloggers.

The Washington Post has a blog and they have a writer that has repeated come to Trayvon Martin's defense and reported on what Teachers, famliy, and others have said. Imagine if this Blogger was brought in and questioned under oath. Imagine the forces and organizations that would fight that to the death.

Quite a different response.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Morgan
Oct 16 2012, 09:04 AM
Appears to me that the plaintiffs should have anticipated this happening. KC was the internet public voice of the defendants.
KC was "a" voice in support of the falsely-accused.

Two sites were formed specifically to support their defense: FODU and Liestoppers.

KC was just a commentator and writer about the case who became widely known and accepted as
reliable only after the quality of his writing
and his meticulous research proved his worth to the internet community.

(Many others blogged about the case, but not as regularly nor as thoroughly.)

Again, what blogger will want to take on the case of persons wrongly accused, or any other major
public matter, if he stands to face subpoena afterward for reporting on the case?

And especially, if he can be compelled to reveal his sources? (And what whistleblower will
want to cooperate in such future cases if the precedent is established that
bloggers--even though they provide an expectation of confidentiality--must reveal
sources?

I find a very large first amendment issue here.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Morgan

Quasimodo
Oct 16 2012, 09:21 AM
Morgan
Oct 16 2012, 09:04 AM
Appears to me that the plaintiffs should have anticipated this happening. KC was the internet public voice of the defendants.
KC was "a" voice in support of the falsely-accused.

Two sites were formed specifically to support their defense: FODU and Liestoppers.

KC was just a commentator and writer about the case who became widely known and accepted as
reliable only after the quality of his writing
and his meticulous research proved his worth to the internet community.

(Many others blogged about the case, but not as regularly nor as thoroughly.)

Again, what blogger will want to take on the case of persons wrongly accused, or any other major
public matter, if he stands to face subpoena afterward for reporting on the case?

And especially, if he can be compelled to reveal his sources? (And what whistleblower will
want to cooperate in such future cases if the precedent is established that
bloggers--even though they provide an expectation of confidentiality--must reveal
sources?

I find a very large first amendment issue here.



I do not believe I am disagreeing here with anyone. But the depositions of the LAX players did include the plaintiffs lawyers. Suppose there was some confusion when asked some questions about events that involved KC and his blog. Based on that knowledge, the plaintiffs lawyers might have expected Duke to ask for clarifying information related to the Durham in Wonderland postings. We are not flies on the wall here. We don't know what conflicts there may have been during the depositions of a number of the players.

Who hurt Duke the most? Durham in Wonderland?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
If KC didn't provide accurate and reliable information, if he didn't play it straight, he would've dried up and blown away.

The Big Media had no interest in providing facts of the case that didn't fit the narrative. I remember large gaps in coverage. Remember Greta's panel just go missing and/or ignoring major stories from the case?

.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

There was a lot of blog stuff going on back then. Info was even coming from inside duke itself. So there is something sneaky going on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Always.
:dsk:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sdsgo

In the early days of the blog, we had a nice custom of welcoming new members.

So I just want stop the discussion long enough to say. “Welcome aboard Morgan!”

:clean:
Edited by sdsgo, Oct 16 2012, 09:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

sdsgo
Oct 16 2012, 09:54 AM
In the early days of the blog, we had a nice custom of welcoming new members.

So I just want stop the discussion long enough to say. “Welcome aboard Morgan!”

:clean:
Ditto!

:flow:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
I'mstillaRebel

I think that Duke's attack on KC is an attempt of pure revenge for the damage that Durham in Wonderland and the book did to the "Duke Brand". There is no telling what the knowledge of Duke's actions toward RCD has cost the university--at a time when donations are more difficult to obtain due to the economy.

Duke is big, powerful and mad. Dangerous combination. Ed Bradley is unavailable for deposition, so they go after the next man on the list.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

I am just not following this.
What Is Duke fishing for? Do they think KC was told something in August about events in March...that somehow mitigates the way they treated their students?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

REPRISE from earlier thread:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/4943853/1/#new

Quote:
 

http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/20322313/article-Duke-continues-push-for-book-author%E2%80%99s-lacrosse-testimony

Duke continues push for book author’s lacrosse testimony

Sept. 30, 2012

By Ray Gronberg

(snip)


But Duke says it successfully subpoenaed another blogger, Jason Trumpbour, who confirmed he had shared information in 2006 with Johnson and a Durham lawyer who is spearheading one of two pending lacrosse-related lawsuits against the school.

[But Trumpbour didn't write a book about the case, and wasn't researching for one.]


Johnson’s “participation … in a group creating work product in the North Carolina litigation is inconsistent with his professed status ‘as a journalist or academic engaged in pre-publication research,’” Duke said in a filing defending its subpoena.

[LOL! If KC participated in a "work product", then so did every other blogger or poster who wrote about
the case.]


Duke’s lawyers say they’re pushing the issue because they’ve had trouble getting answers to their questions through depositions of former members of its 2005-06 men’s lacrosse team.

[It was their choice to wait six years after the event to start asking questions. Maybe they should expect that the witnesses no longer remember...]

Among other things, they’re trying to fend off the players’ claim that Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek advised them in the spring of 2006 not to tell their parents that stripper Crystal Mangum had lodged a rape allegation against the team.

Mangum’s charges later proved false.

The evidence-gathering process has already turned up an early draft of the Johnson-Taylor book that said Wasiolek advised the players “to cooperate with police and tell nobody about the rape charge.”

The draft additionally said the players “took this to include their parents,” a comment that implies it was their own spin on whatever message Wasiolek had given them.

[Since the players were there, and there were more than one of them, I assume that their simultaneous interpretation may be close to the correct one.]

The qualifier disappeared from the finished version of the book, replaced by a recollection, attributed to former lacrosse team co-captain Dan Flannery, that she’d said, “Don’t tell anyone. Not even your parents.”

Johnson and Taylor in their published book acknowledged that Wasiolek had denied making that comment.

[Wasiolek though had trouble knowing much about anything in her deposition, IIRC. (MOO)]


The dean’s disputed advice is one issue in a fraud claim a federal judge has allowed 38 former players to pursue against Duke. The two sides in that case have been swapping evidence in anticipation of a trial.

Also in the evidence-gathering process is a separate lawsuit filed by three players represented by Durham lawyer Bob Ekstrand. Duke in the 38-player lawsuit has subpoenaed Ekstrand and one of his law partners, former Duke women’s lacrosse player Stefani Smith.

Trumpbour is a Maryland lawyer who also blogged about the case on a pro-lacrosse-team site called “Friends of Duke University.”

A Sept. 10 letter from Trumpbour answering Duke’s subpoena acknowledged that he’d given the university’s lawyers copies of his email about the case, save for a number of items he said he was withholding because they might be attorney work product.

Among them, he said, were three fall 2006 email threads that included Ekstrand and Johnson. They touched on the veracity of former Duke trustees Chairman Robert Steel and cooperation between Duke and the Durham police, Trumpbour said.


[Trumpbour could comment on what Steel told him; but since he wasn't present for discussions between Duke and the DPD, his
testimony would only be hearsay, and there would be other witnesses to ask about that.]




Quote:
 

Quote:
 

The draft additionally said the players “took this to include their parents,” a comment that implies it was their own spin on whatever message Wasiolek had given them.




Why don't they ask Wes Covington what was expected of him, and of the players? That would be corroborating testimony.


(Oh, sorry; Judge Beaty intervened to prevent regular early depositions in the name of "judicial economy"...)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

So this is all about what the definition of "nobody" is?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Okay, on one hand you have a group of frightened students...the ones in actual legal peril. They are being accused of either rape or conspiring to cover-up a rape.

On the other hand, you have a Duke bureaucrat who also happens to be an attorney. The latter is not in any jeopardy herself. She is essentially doing her JOB that day.

On whose shoulders does the responsibilty for clarity fall? Even if she adhers to the story of "being misunderstood"....kind of like a pharmacist, her job is to be CERTAIN that she IS understood. So any miscommunication is a result of her neglience.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Going back into KC's archives, i find his first post in April of 2006, not August.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Truth Detector
Oct 16 2012, 12:11 PM
Going back into KC's archives, i find his first post in April of 2006, not August.
Yeah, I thought I was reading KC's blog posts well before August 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

KC wrote a few blogposts on Cliopatria about the lacrosse case before he started D-i-W. He wrote 2-13 posts per month until August, 2006 when he started blogging an an almost daily basis.

Here is the link to his first post on D-iW on Sunday April 23:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html
Edited by sceptical, Oct 16 2012, 12:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Wade

Quasimodo
Oct 15 2012, 08:44 PM
So why not ask the players what they said? They are already part of the suit and going to be deposed anyway. Aren't they
a much better primary source for what they said?
They have. It's pretty clear Duke's lawyers suspect some of the players' account has been massaged over time, particularly as relates to what Dean Sue may have told them. So they're looking for timeline/development data to see how it may have evolved.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

From John-In-Carolina-- according to him KC Johnson's first blogpost anywhere about the Duke case was April 16, 2006, even though KC did not start writing daily until August, 2006.

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/08/duke-lacrosse-kc-johnson-moves-to.html

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Duke lacrosse: KC Johnson “moves” to Durham-in-Wonderland

Historian, professor and blogger Robert KC Johnson has moved to Durham-in-Wonderland where he’ll continue the outstanding Duke lacrosse blogging he began at Cliopatria.

Here’s part of KC’s first Duke lacrosse post, Duke News (April 16):

In the latest in what has seemed a poorly managed investigation, the Durham police gained entry, without warrants and apparently without the assistance of the Duke police, to Duke dorms and attempted to interrogate several lacrosse players, who all sides knew had lawyers.

When asked about the matter Friday, Brodhead said he didn't know enough about the issue to comment, and hasn't said anything since.


With his concerns about “a poorly managed investigation” and President Brodhead’s silence, KC was ahead of most people.

Back on April 16 hardly anyone on the Duke faculty was expressing any concern about what Nifong and the police were doing. And few have publicly expressed any concern since, although many now want me to know when we talk face-to-face that they had “grave concerns very early.”

Back on April 16 the editorial writers at the Raleigh News & Observer and the Durham Herald Sun had no problems with the investigation. In fact, they still don’t.

Both papers continue to support Nifong in his determination to prosecute three Duke students whose indictments were the results of investigative travesties that included a photo ID procedure in which the accuser was told she would be looking only at pictures of students who had been at the party.

Duke Law Professor James E. Coleman, Jr understood the purpose of that travesty: “Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice.”

President Brodhead has found nothing critical to say about Nifong. Brodhead hasn’t questioned any of the investigative travestes that included a photo ID that most people would see as a frameup. Throw the indictments out? Brodhead’s told the Friends of Duke University that he’s looking forward to the students having a chance to prove their innocence at trial. (Yes, it is supposed to work the other way.)

Brodhead may be silent but KC has continued to speak out on many aspects of the Duke lacrosse hoax. His posts are carefully researched, organized, and literate.

There’s something I especially like about KC’s posts: He can skewer hypocrites, especially ones from the academy. Look how KC responded to Duke’s Professor Karla Holloway when she recently indulged in some PC preening in a letter to the Herald Sun :

Holloway, who is currently chair of the Race Subcommittee of President William Brodhead’s Campus Cultures Initiative, complained about “the athletic spaces of Duke where it has become painfully clear that for some, the rules of the game are different.”

Duke, she proclaimed, is a campus beset by the “problematic issues of race, respect, and equity” (it’s worth remembering, as I’ve noted before, that Group of 88 members are talking about a campus where a department chair could jokingly explain away the faculty’s overwhelming ideological imbalance by noting, “If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire.”)

It might be that the Duke Chronicle was wrong when it chastised the Group of 88 for "listening" to a handful of students while ignoring the "several thousand others of us” undergrads who disagreed that “Duke breeds cultures of hate, racism, sexism and other forms of backward thinking.” But at this stage, the campus newspaper has more credibility on this issue than someone who signed the Group of 88's statement.

Holloway continued on how difficult this entire process has been for her. “Of course you want a chance to make your campus better,” she recently told the Herald-Sun, "but at what cost? When you are serviced to fix the problem and you are also the victim, it’s a double duty.”

Holloway holds an endowed chair in English. Moreover, I’m a bit dubious about how anyone who joined what David Brooks has termed Durham’s “witch hunt” by signing the Group of 88’s statement defines “victim.”

Holloway also informed Herald-Sun readers that “her committee has been working hard all summer, fully informed by many documents, including those from the President's Council on Black Affairs, the Duke University Black Alumni, as well as students, administrators and faculty members.”

Yet today, when people e-mailed Holloway to ask about her letter, they received the following reply:
Thank you for your message. However, I will be away from the office and will not be reading email regularly until August. Until that time, the most reliable way to reach me is to post your correspondence . . . If your message is urgent or time sensitive, please contact the English Department Office.
Perhaps Holloway’s subcommittee isn’t working all that hard on campus this summer. (But then again, it doesn’t need to do so, since its conclusions appear to have been laid down by the Group of 88's statement.)

Or perhaps Holloway is simultaneously toiling away on campus this summer while she’s out of her office and not answering her email until August—just as one of Nifong’s targets, Reade Seligmann, was simultaneously committing a crime while he was videotaped at an ATM machine a mile away. The last three months have shown that the law operates differently in Durham; perhaps physics does as well.

Keep it up, KC. You do great work.

And welcome to Durham in Wonderland. Our town needs more folks like you.
Edited by sceptical, Oct 16 2012, 12:58 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

So nice to see that post from JinC.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Gee. Wouldn't it be nice if we could get all this into an open court, subpoena witnesses, take sworn testimony, allow cross-examination, and come to a conclusion. That may be the best way to find out what really happened.

Oh, wait. Isn't that what we've always wanted?

Why, I would even be willing to travel to Durham - at my own expense - and testify under oath as to how I came to my own conclusion without prompting from anyone, to file an NC Bar grievance against Dean Sue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Wade

abb
Oct 16 2012, 05:54 AM
KC needs to be blogging about all this. A lot.
Given that this has been going since August, and he hasn't said a word about it on DIW, I imagine his lawyers have very firmly advised him against blogging about his subpoena.

KC has already given a deposition in the Katie Rouse case. From the partial transcript available, he gave as good as he got. So Duke's lawyers signed up for round 2 knowing that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply